User talk:FozzieHey/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:FozzieHey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Welcome!
Hi FozzieHey! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Nathan2055talk - contribs 23:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: 1935 Donington Grand Prix has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
Hitro talk 07:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)Apologies
Sorry if I've come across as being a bit of a dick (or should I say, sorry for being a bit of a dick!)... you're right that I shouldn't keep reverting (I think we both violated 3RR but I don't plan to do any more "reverting" other than making a few minor changes to the race results table to make it more in line with the standard format (which I wouldn't call reverting anyway), and I imagine you don't intend to either, so that shouldn't be a problem). Also I've seen your edit to the order of the quals. I will make another comment on this on my own talk page to keep it in one place but I wanted to put this here as I realised I've gone a bit overboard! A7V2 (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- It's fine, you probably know a lot more than me (this is my first article so I might have messed up on a few places!), I definitely didn't mean to intentionaly cut out the "road course" section of the quote, just assumed there was no past GPs in Great Britain. FozzieHey (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also, we both only made 2 (maybe 3) reverts, not violating the 3RR. FozzieHey (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah yes you're right... all this time I thought it was "less than", not "no more than" 3 reverts... any way it was a very well done article especially for a first one. As far as the formatting goes it's probably best to err on keeping it the same or similar to the other GP articles (which I'm doing). It's actually an article I had on my to-do list. Unless you or someone else gets to it first I will probably eventually write a race summary as that's generally what I do most of the time anyway. A7V2 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, unfortunately I can't find many newspaper articles with a race summary in, I might pick up some of Doug Nye's books though and have a read through them. FozzieHey (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- In terms of the facts of the race itself (including finishing positions, times, descriptions of how the race went etc) you have to be very careful using daily newspapers. They generally had tight deadlines so they didn't have the time to check things that monthlies like Motorsport or Autosport have, or when books are written (but of course all sources can contain errors!) If you want good race reports Nye's "The British Grand Prix" and "The United States Grand Prix" are great places to start. Also if you haven't seen it before you might enjoy Leif Snellman's website which has reports on most of the major races from the 30s and now even the 20s but note it is a work in progress [1]. A7V2 (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, thanks for the suggestions. Most of the articles are published a few days after the event though so they tend to be more trustworthy than rushed pieces. FozzieHey (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- In terms of the facts of the race itself (including finishing positions, times, descriptions of how the race went etc) you have to be very careful using daily newspapers. They generally had tight deadlines so they didn't have the time to check things that monthlies like Motorsport or Autosport have, or when books are written (but of course all sources can contain errors!) If you want good race reports Nye's "The British Grand Prix" and "The United States Grand Prix" are great places to start. Also if you haven't seen it before you might enjoy Leif Snellman's website which has reports on most of the major races from the 30s and now even the 20s but note it is a work in progress [1]. A7V2 (talk) 23:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, unfortunately I can't find many newspaper articles with a race summary in, I might pick up some of Doug Nye's books though and have a read through them. FozzieHey (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Ah yes you're right... all this time I thought it was "less than", not "no more than" 3 reverts... any way it was a very well done article especially for a first one. As far as the formatting goes it's probably best to err on keeping it the same or similar to the other GP articles (which I'm doing). It's actually an article I had on my to-do list. Unless you or someone else gets to it first I will probably eventually write a race summary as that's generally what I do most of the time anyway. A7V2 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Also, we both only made 2 (maybe 3) reverts, not violating the 3RR. FozzieHey (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Re: Language localisation unnecessary?
Yes, it is unnecessary, because we're on English Wikipedia. If the source had had another language, in that case you would have added it putting a different language code.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @87.3.108.67: We're on the English Wikipedia correct, the default language is "en-US" under the cite news template, I don't see any opposition to including "en-GB" as it helps with accessibility and is automatically added by the cite generator anyway. FozzieHey (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've replaced it with a better source from F1.com.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @87.3.108.67: Fine but you still haven't explained your opposition to including "en-GB" in the cite news template, will you continue to remove it from cite news sources? FozzieHey (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Because it is unnecessary to report the language parameter "en-GB" is the source is already written totally in English. For example you can see 2020 Australian Grand Prix (source number 11). The content is written in Italian and at the time someone put "language=it".--87.3.108.67 (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @87.3.108.67: How is it unnecessary? it's automatically added by the cite generator. It'd be unnecessary if it was "en-US" as that's the default paramater, what harm does it do to include "en-GB"? FozzieHey (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- You can't simply put "language=en-GB" if the source is written already in English. It's the rule.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @87.3.108.67: en-US and en-GB are different, by default it is "en-US". What rule are you referring to? FozzieHey (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've never read/found a source (when the content is in English) with those codes.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @87.3.108.67: Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't make it a Wikipedia policy. The language is automatically added by the citation generator so I believe it's appropriate to leave it there, unless you can come up with any reasons why it's not. FozzieHey (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @SSSB:--87.3.108.67 (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- From Template:Cite web, we have:
language: A comma-separated list of the languages in which the source is written, as either the [[ISO 639]] language code (preferred) or the full language name, e.g. |language=fr, pt-br or |language=French, Portuguese. See the list of supported codes and names. Do not use templates or wikilinks. Displays in parentheses with "in" before the language name or names. When the only source language is English, no language is displayed in the citation. The use of languages recognized by the citation module adds the page to the appropriate subcategory of Category:CS1 foreign language sources. Because cs1|2 templates are often copied from en.wiki to other wikis, use of language codes is preferred so that languages render in the correct language and form: espagnol at a French-language wiki instead of 'Spanish'. Aliases: lang
- As FozzieHey mentioned, not including language codes is harmful to accessibility and the importation of sources to other non-English projects. As the template states, "in English" is not displayed. There is no "rule" as you claim prohibiting this, and the inclusion of language codes is harmless and actually helpful for those that rely on them.
5225C (talk • contributions) 23:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @SSSB:--87.3.108.67 (talk) 12:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @87.3.108.67: Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't make it a Wikipedia policy. The language is automatically added by the citation generator so I believe it's appropriate to leave it there, unless you can come up with any reasons why it's not. FozzieHey (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've never read/found a source (when the content is in English) with those codes.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @87.3.108.67: en-US and en-GB are different, by default it is "en-US". What rule are you referring to? FozzieHey (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- You can't simply put "language=en-GB" if the source is written already in English. It's the rule.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @87.3.108.67: How is it unnecessary? it's automatically added by the cite generator. It'd be unnecessary if it was "en-US" as that's the default paramater, what harm does it do to include "en-GB"? FozzieHey (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- Because it is unnecessary to report the language parameter "en-GB" is the source is already written totally in English. For example you can see 2020 Australian Grand Prix (source number 11). The content is written in Italian and at the time someone put "language=it".--87.3.108.67 (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- @87.3.108.67: Fine but you still haven't explained your opposition to including "en-GB" in the cite news template, will you continue to remove it from cite news sources? FozzieHey (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
- I've replaced it with a better source from F1.com.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
You added again language=enGB but this code actually doesn't appear in the source (94) because as I said is an unnecessary code. Its requirement for the template source is not requested.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- The article is writen in British English, the cite generator automatically added "language=en-GB", what rule says this is unnecessary? If it was unnecessary then why would a) the cite generator automatically add it, and b) the code exist on English Wikipedia? Read @5225C:'s statement above on why it's necessary. FozzieHey (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- The language field in the cite web template it used for accessibility, localisation, and translation. There is no harm to including this field and it is included in every citation automatically, and can be detected by the citation tool through the specific localised spellings in the source. You claim there is some sort of rule against its inclusion, but there is none. Continuing to revert the addition of a language field of only one citation (when there are 19 citations on the 2020 article which include the language field) is not only unnecessary but also disruptive and petty.
5225C (talk • contributions) 10:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)- I thought we had to add the code language= only when a source is written in another language.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I believe the default presumed field for language is "en" (Although there's no harm in just adding "language=en" as is automatically generated by the cite generator), adding "en-GB" does no harm and just further explains what type of English is in use. FozzieHey (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Whether you put e.g. language=it it works into the source. It automatically appears. But if we leave language=en it doesn't because the content source is written already in English.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Use the cite button for the source and you will find it automatically adds "language=en-GB". FozzieHey (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I am not used to using that button. When I have a source I use cite web url title date access date and author if present. If this source has another language I eventually add language and no thing else.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Use the cite button for the source and you will find it automatically adds "language=en-GB". FozzieHey (talk) 10:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- Whether you put e.g. language=it it works into the source. It automatically appears. But if we leave language=en it doesn't because the content source is written already in English.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I already explained this above using the template's documentation. The language code should be added regardless of whether it's English or a variant of English or another language entirely, because this is used for translation and localisation. Please do not remove these fields in future.
5225C (talk • contributions) 11:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)- Ok, that's fine.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I believe the default presumed field for language is "en" (Although there's no harm in just adding "language=en" as is automatically generated by the cite generator), adding "en-GB" does no harm and just further explains what type of English is in use. FozzieHey (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
- I thought we had to add the code language= only when a source is written in another language.--87.3.108.67 (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
See also:
- Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
- Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
- Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
TonyBallioni (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
Hi FozzieHey/Archive 1,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.
Rollback granted
Hi FozzieHey. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
- Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
- Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
- Rollback should never be used to edit war.
- If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
- Use common sense.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Anarchyte (talk • work) 16:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
1925 French Grand Prix and Albert Divo
Hi FozzieHey. I noticed in your large edit to 1925 French Grand Prix that you removed all trace of Albert Divo's initial number 6 entry which actually started the race. Probably it was just an error which was later fixed on [2] but I prefer to assume that you have a vendetta against him! All the best. A7V2 (talk) 12:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- @A7V2: Yeah I don’t know what happened there, probably just a copy paste issue. Anyway thanks for fixing it! FozzieHey (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. Also in case you didn't know, pings only work if you put a signature in the same edit. A7V2 (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Really? Not if you just add one? Hmm. Thanks! FozzieHey (talk) 22:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- No problem. Also in case you didn't know, pings only work if you put a signature in the same edit. A7V2 (talk) 22:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Warning templates
Hi FozzieHey,
Please note that per WP:WARNVAND the first user warning on a user's page should be level 1 or 2. Whilst it is sometimes appropriate to use a level 3 right out of the blocks, this is usually excessivly agrresive. I feel edits such as this one:Special:Diff/986394940 warrant a level 2 at most - suitable for intentional nonsense or disruption
(for first instance). Thank you,
SSSB (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree, the user made previous vandal edits and it was clear that it was just vandalism. Level 3 seems appropriate here, especially since the immediate block after the fact. We can always ask Materialscientist if you really think it's that big of an issue though. FozzieHey (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @SSSB: Sorry, missed the ping. I don't think you should give them a level 1 warning again after returning to vandalism immediately after a block. FozzieHey (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Immediatly after a block is different or previous disruptive editing is differnet. I mean for the first instance (which this appears to be, no previous warnings in talk page history). My arguement that the diff would start at level 2 was an analysis without taking into consideration previous edits. If I went to the talk page and found previous templates or blocks I might consiider ramping it up, but in my mind starting at level 3 for all cases (I've only ever seen you use level 3) is excessive. But if you disagree, fine, nothing more said. It was more of a suggestion.
SSSB (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)- @SSSB: I generally start with a level 1 as this is the default for Huggle. Sometimes I will start with a level 2 for intentional vandalism through Twinkle. However if a user is clearly intentionally vanadalising pages before a warning then I will generally post a level 3 (In this case the user made a previous vandal edit to the same page). Thanks anyway though, not trying to be rude or anything! FozzieHey (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, if that's the case I am the one being rude. Clearly I am either not paying attention or getting your history confused with someone else (probably both)
SSSB (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- No, if that's the case I am the one being rude. Clearly I am either not paying attention or getting your history confused with someone else (probably both)
- @SSSB: I generally start with a level 1 as this is the default for Huggle. Sometimes I will start with a level 2 for intentional vandalism through Twinkle. However if a user is clearly intentionally vanadalising pages before a warning then I will generally post a level 3 (In this case the user made a previous vandal edit to the same page). Thanks anyway though, not trying to be rude or anything! FozzieHey (talk) 11:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- Immediatly after a block is different or previous disruptive editing is differnet. I mean for the first instance (which this appears to be, no previous warnings in talk page history). My arguement that the diff would start at level 2 was an analysis without taking into consideration previous edits. If I went to the talk page and found previous templates or blocks I might consiider ramping it up, but in my mind starting at level 3 for all cases (I've only ever seen you use level 3) is excessive. But if you disagree, fine, nothing more said. It was more of a suggestion.
New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck
HI FozzieHey/Archive 1,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
I think you made a mistake
You rolled back significant changes to my edits to the "Long-distance trails in the United States" page. Why? I was fixing things that were broken. I did add and fix many citations. What gives? You're wrong, buddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevingy (talk • contribs) 15:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Kevingy: Indeed, Huggle will automatically rollback all edits and I reverted this one, maybe next time you could avoid ranting (as you described yourself "Added rant about the Ozark Trail") in the article? FozzieHey (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @FozzieHey: Ok, if you are so offended, roll back the ONE update containing the rant, not all three updates I made today. Don't you think rolling back ALL changes is overkill to remove the one (factually correct) update containing the rant? Kevingy (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Kevingy: Huggle will only show me one revision (in this case, your rant revision) it will then give me the option to revert it, that will automatically revert *all* of a person's edits in a row. Generally people do not make good contributions and then violate the policies, this is why all of your edits were inadventently reverted. FozzieHey (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @FozzieHey: I see that you fixed the revert. Thanks! Kevingy (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Kevingy: Yup, sorry about that. It was my mistake, should have checked the earlier revisions! Thanks for your contributions. FozzieHey (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @FozzieHey: I see that you fixed the revert. Thanks! Kevingy (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Kevingy: Huggle will only show me one revision (in this case, your rant revision) it will then give me the option to revert it, that will automatically revert *all* of a person's edits in a row. Generally people do not make good contributions and then violate the policies, this is why all of your edits were inadventently reverted. FozzieHey (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
- @FozzieHey: Ok, if you are so offended, roll back the ONE update containing the rant, not all three updates I made today. Don't you think rolling back ALL changes is overkill to remove the one (factually correct) update containing the rant? Kevingy (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Tuchel to Chelsea
This is not speculation. See here here. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @REDMAN 2019: That is entirely speculation, if it's not confirmed then it's speculation "The Athletic understands the club legend will be replaced by the former Paris Saint-Germain boss.". I'm sure with your experience you're aware of the BLP policy. FozzieHey (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I will wait. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
First: before my edition it said "he plays", when he's almost 70 years old
Second: the addition of black gloves was to facilitate the choice, in Portugal EVERYONE knows about black gloves, it is a distinctive feature!
Thanks for the attention, but I think it's better and more complete with my editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:818:DC7F:8B00:8C08:7893:C6EA:B0F5 (talk) 16:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- If "everyone" knows it then you should be able to easily WP:CITE it. FozzieHey (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
|
Hi FozzieHey! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse,
|
WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review
Dear editors, developers and friends:
Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.
Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.
Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
| Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Deletion of article
How can we nominate an article for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.177.154.169 (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, you have three main options. Firstly, if you feel the article meets any of the speedy deletion criteria, you may nominate it through the instructions on that page. If not, and you feel like no one would contest your deletion, you can nominate it via WP:PROD. Lastly, if you feel like there may be some opposition, but overall the article should be deleted, you can nominate it through WP:AfD. Make sure to throughouly read the instructions for the method you're using as I've just skimmed through some of the reasons here. Hope that clears things up for you, thanks. FozzieHey (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Kelly Curtis edit
Thank you for reverting the addition of a date of birth to Kelly Curtis. I have been criticized recently for removing unsourced dates of birth in BLP articles. I appreciate your support. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Teblick: Not sure why you'd be criticized for it, people really shouldn't be adding unsourced information to BLPs and should follow WP:BLPDOB. If it happens again and you can't resolve it with a simple talk page discussion, I'd just report it to WP:BLPNB. FozzieHey (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that suggestion. I had not thought about turning to WP:BLPNB. The situation that frustrated me most occurred on an editor's talk page. I reverted his or her addition of an unsourced date of birth and posted a message explaining the removal by pointing out not only the basic need for citing sources but also WP:BLPPRIVACY as it applies to BLP. We had a couple of exchanges after that, with his or her last response being:
I think that rule usually only applies to non-famous people. Famous people can't expect to receive as much privacy as non-famous ones. Just look at what the media are doing - they're publishing much more private things about famous people than just the date of birth.As I mentioned before, the birth of date of Staci Keanan was on the page for years and can easily be found by looking into older edits, so what's the point of hurrying the deletion? In addition, often enough it happens that someone provides a source and then someone else claims this source is "not reliable". (By the way, I don't generally check the rulebooks before I make an edit. There are way, way too many rules on the Wikipedia, so if you check all rules that might or might not apply you never get to do the editing. I prefer to rely on common sense. Ok, that puts me in risk that someone who drops by might claim that my edit might violate some more or less obscure rule and revert it, but so what?! Let's just take it a bit easier!)
- At that point I gave up arguing with the person and felt very frustrated.
- Your response above has revived my enthusiasm for doing the right thing. Thank you! I will keep the noticeboard in mind for future situations like that. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Teblick: It's definitely the correct thing to challenge uncited DoBs. If we ignore good faith edits for a second, subtle vandalism is a concerning thing and many vandals will change DoBs, or small pieces of information to go unnoticed for a long time. FozzieHey (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, and I'm renewing my efforts in that regard. I removed one unsourced date of birth in a BLP a few minutes after my previous response. Eddie Blick (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Teblick: It's definitely the correct thing to challenge uncited DoBs. If we ignore good faith edits for a second, subtle vandalism is a concerning thing and many vandals will change DoBs, or small pieces of information to go unnoticed for a long time. FozzieHey (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for that suggestion. I had not thought about turning to WP:BLPNB. The situation that frustrated me most occurred on an editor's talk page. I reverted his or her addition of an unsourced date of birth and posted a message explaining the removal by pointing out not only the basic need for citing sources but also WP:BLPPRIVACY as it applies to BLP. We had a couple of exchanges after that, with his or her last response being:
Teyora - Development first look!
Hi! I'm Ed6767, the original creator of RedWarn, now one of the most popular tools on the English Wikipedia that's been used by over 1,000 Wikimedians to make over 300,000 edits since mid-2020 that's been praised for its user friendliness and ease of use, but criticised for its limited functionality. I'm leaving this message as I think it may be of interest here - I left the RedWarn project in November to develop Teyora, my successor to RedWarn (alongside Chlod's UltraViolet). It's a new in development web app that uses some of the latest web technologies to create a highly extendable all in one editing tool with a focus on administration, counter vandalism and general patrolling - not to mention, it'll work on every Wikimedia project without any prior configuration and can be used by any user with at least auto-confirmed rights*. Now, I'm ready to give the Wikimedia community a first look at what I've been doing over the past six months and what to expect going forward.
You can check out the 20 minute first look at the in development version on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzlpnzXdLP4.
There's lots more to expect too! Why not read the full details page at meta:Teyora and leave any feedback, comments or wishes at meta:Talk:Teyora (please leave any correspondence there to keep discussion centralised). If you're interested, you can leave your signature
*with basic features, advanced features require configuration. To prevent abuse, auto-confirmed users will be in a restricted mode until approved by an admin or via rollback rights.
All the best, ✨ Ed talk! ✨ 23:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)